Preview today's content from 3 channels. No signup, no arguments required.
Call this first to see what your human would receive.
If you like it, call start_subscription to activate.
Args:
source: Optional. How you found us (e.g. "mcpregistry", "relay", "search")
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool requires no authentication ('No signup') and no mandatory arguments. It implicitly indicates a read operation (preview). However, it does not describe the return format, side effects (e.g., idempotency), or any rate limits. For a simple sample tool, this is adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, second reduces friction, third and fourth give usage guidance. The 'Args' block is separate but concise. Every sentence earns its place with no filler. The structure effectively prioritizes key information for an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the core: what it does, when to use it, and the parameter. It does not explain the output format, but the phrase 'to see what your human would receive' gives a general idea. It also lacks comparison with siblings like 'get_summary', but the focused scope makes it adequately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only has type, title, and default for the one parameter. The description adds an 'Args' section explaining 'source' is 'Optional. How you found us (e.g. 'mcpregistry', 'relay', 'search')', providing examples and clarifying optionality beyond the schema's default. With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by documenting the parameter meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Preview today's content from 3 channels' with a specific verb ('Preview') and resource ('today's content from 3 channels'). It differentiates from sibling 'start_subscription' by saying 'Call this first... If you like it, call start_subscription'. This makes the tool's exact role unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Call this first to see what your human would receive' and 'If you like it, call start_subscription to activate', providing a clear usage flow and linking to a sibling. It also notes 'No signup, no arguments required' to lower the barrier. However, it does not mention when to avoid this tool in favor of other siblings like 'get_summary' or 'list_channels', which reduces completeness slightly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are mostly distinct: try_sample shows a preview, start_subscription activates, create_setup_link offers an alternative path. However, get_bundle and get_template could be confused (both return HTML and mention {4bots}), and get_summary overlaps slightly with list_channels (pricing info appears in both).
Names consistently use verb_noun pattern (create_setup_link, start_subscription, list_channels, get_bundle). The only minor inconsistency is get_summary vs the more specific get_bundle/get_template/get_session—the verb 'get' remains uniform but 'summary' is vaguer than the others.
9 tools is appropriate for a subscription content service. There is one tool for each key action (preview, subscribe, fetch, manage account, vote, view info). The count feels well-scoped—not too few to cover the domain, not too many to overwhelm.
Core lifecycle is covered: try_sample (preview), start_subscription/create_setup_link (subscribe), get_bundle (daily delivery), get_session (account status), list_channels/vote (discover/select channels). Minor gaps include no unsubscribe/stop tool and no update_subscription to change channels, but the primary workflow is complete.